The misguided optimism in today’s presidential election

There are few forces in politics more powerful than hope. It drives voters to the polls, inspires movements and transforms political landscapes. Leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama captivated the nation with messages of optimism and change. These leaders painted pictures of a brighter future and rallied voters behind bold visions. But as we approach the next presidential election, it seems that today’s candidates’ appeals to hope and change are inauthentic — rooted not in ideology or policy, but in fear.

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign is a quintessential example of how hope can reshape the political landscape. Obama’s message wasn’t just a slogan; it was a call to action that inspired millions of Americans. People voted for Obama because they believed in his vision for the future, his policy proposals and the sense of progress he promised. Voters in that election weren’t just hopeful that Obama would win — they were hopeful about the America he promised to create.

Fast forward to today, and the political landscape looks very different. Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz have secured the Democratic nomination, and many voters have embraced their message of hope for the future. While the Democratic Party appeared to have little chance of success under the stewardship of President Joe Biden, Harris’ rise has injected energy into the base and reshaped the race. There is now a sense among voters that Democrats can win, sparking renewed hope within the party.

However, it is essential to distinguish between two types of hope: hope based on ideology and vision versus hope rooted in the possibility of defeating Donald Trump. These two are not the same. Candidates must provide a reason for voters to be hopeful about the future they aim to create — this is a much higher threshold than simply inspiring hope by preventing a feared outcome. While the optimism surrounding Harris and Walz may be palpable, much of it stems more from the desire to avoid Trump’s return to power than from the transformative policies they propose. In essence, voters’ hope isn’t solely grounded in policy or new ideas, but in party loyalty and a fear of the alternative.

A more nuanced sign of this distinction between the types of hope can be seen in Harris’ campaign strategy. Though she has released policy positions on her website, much of her public rhetoric continues to focus on portraying Trump as a threat to democracy, rather than consistently highlighting her own vision. In fact, even when Harris outlines her policies on her website, she follows them with sections titled “Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda,” where she warns that his proposals would ruin the country. This approach shifts the focus back to the dangers of a Trump presidency, even in spaces meant to showcase her own platform.

Of course, this cycle of fear-based voting isn’t exclusive to one party — Republicans, too, may find themselves voting for Trump not because of his vision, but because they fear what a progressive agenda could mean for the country. 

This kind of hope poses a serious risk to the democratic process. Voting based on fear of the opposition, rather than out of support for a candidate’s vision, creates a cycle of disillusionment. When candidates win using rhetoric and not policy, voters can be left disappointed when real change doesn’t materialize. The focus on preventing a feared outcome rather than striving for a desired outcome can lead to stagnation and deepen cynicism about the political system.

To move beyond this cycle of fear-based voting, we must reclaim hope as a force for ideological change, not just party victory. Voters can challenge this cycle by attending town halls, pushing candidates to explain their platforms in detail and supporting grassroots movements that prioritize ideology over party loyalty. 

Voters should want more from their candidates: detailed policy positions, clear platforms and a vision for the future that goes beyond beating the opposition. We should support leaders who offer real solutions to the problems we face, whether they are part of a major party or not. As voters, we have the power to shape the future of our country. But that future depends on our willingness to demand more from those who seek to lead us. 

The alternative is to continue down the path we’re on now — where hope is reduced to a tool for electoral success rather than a beacon of progress. If we keep voting based on fear of what the other side might do, we will never break free from this cycle of mediocrity. Instead, we must embrace a new kind of hope, one grounded in the belief that our political leaders can deliver more than just party loyalty.

It’s important to acknowledge that we are working within the constraints of the current candidates. While it might be too late to change who is on the ballot, we are not powerless. Even now, we can push both parties’ candidates to engage in more concrete policy discussions that go beyond merely opposing the other side. Democrats, for example, deserve to hear a clear, forward-looking vision that is rooted in actionable ideas for a better future, rather than a continuous focus on defeating Donald Trump.

In the end, the choice is ours. We can continue to settle for candidates who offer little more than the promise of defeating the opposition, or we can ask for a new kind of hope — one that believes in a brighter, more progressive future for all. By insisting on this higher standard, we have the power to shape elections not just now, but in the years to come. If we want a better future, we must demand more than just the promise of victory — we must insist on a vision for real progress and hold our leaders accountable to deliver it.

Seth Gabrielson is an Opinion Analyst who writes about the intersection of politics, science and philosophy, while studying physics, philosophy, aerospace engineering and German. He can be reached at semiel@umich.edu.

Related articles